In anticipation of the AZ contract publication, a quick walk through of the vaccine contract we do have (which may be different, though I doubt it) and why the Commission's argument is disgraceful

@ImPranav_M @GunduHuDuGa That's a good qsn, if not a bit nuanced. Avataras are of many varieties and frankly, most of the classification is only for our understanding and not really binding on Paramatma Himself. We can take several approaches to understanding this. If you go by a Vedantic approach,+

@GunduHuDuGa Avatara means that which descends from an exalted state (Taara). Going by Upanishadic observaton of Purnam adham purnam idham, every manifestation of Bhagavan is indeed wholesome. In fact, Avataras usually happen when Iswara is propitiated with certain qualities already+

@GunduHuDuGa described in the Vedas by other Devatas. So, in order to please them, He assumes the form that best envisages the said Vaidika tatvam. For example, Varaha and Nrusimha avatars, though they have sthoola prayojanas, also exemplify the Tejovanna tatvam propounded by Upanishads.+

@GunduHuDuGa All these tatvams ultimately emanate from Him so whatever form He takes is indeed Purna. Now, one may ask then if that's the case, why such a distinction had to be made in the first place. That is because of upasana vidhis and understanding of how Bhagavad tatvam shines+

@GunduHuDuGa with each Leela being performed. Let's take Nrusimha avatar. The purpose of the avatar is neither to save Hiranyakasipu nor rescue Prahlada. For that He need not descend down as H's boons are applicable only for Brahman's creation and not Paramatma Himself.+

The Creative Process in 43 Hayao Miyazaki Screengrabs

(Context: https://t.co/nqjmAtLAND)

3 December 2020 #MAGAanalysis #RedoTheElection

When You Catch A Thief

The sleeping giant of America sleeps no more. We have awakened. We're nothing more than the same Common Sense Americans we were in 1776. We're feisty. Independent and self-sufficient. Hard working.

Some familiar figures are pushing the absurd and defamatory claim that Ken Loach supports Holocaust denial. The story of this bogus talking-point, which relies upon multiple layers of falsehood and guilt-by-association, makes for a revealing case-study. 1/

It dates back to the 2017 Labour conference. In a NYT op-ed, Howard Jacobson claimed that “a motion to question the truth of the Holocaust was proposed” from the conference floor—a crude fabrication, which the NYT sanctioned in its pages. 2/

If you follow the link supplied by Jacobson or his editors, you’ll see that he was wrong on 3 counts: it wasn’t a motion, it wasn’t at the conference, and it wasn’t in favour of Holocaust denial. Quite the hat-trick! 3/

At a fringe meeting, granted no official status by Labour, an Israeli-Jewish speaker, Miko Peled, had said that he didn’t think Holocaust denial should be a criminal offense (which it is in some European countries). 4/

This is a perfectly reasonable position to hold—that opinions, no matter how wrong-headed or morally objectionable, should not be a matter for the criminal law—and of course it does not mean that Peled himself questions the truth of the Holocaust. 5/